Google to be hit by €1B ($1.12B) fine within weeks as EU finds it guilty in antitrust case

[FakezZ]

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Starting an ISP is not hard because of government regulations. It's hard because it is hard.

Just because your government might be shit does not mean we should get rid of all other governments in all situations. History has time and time again shown that a completely free market with no regulations does not work. You can interpret history all you want, but any rational person will be able to find examples where companies were doing extremely bad things and the free market did not put them out of business. Chance was forced from government which in the end benefited everyone.

While I do agree that a completely free market has its flaws, I believe that the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks of government regulation. Also calling for more regulation to fix companies paying to implement favorable regulation is at its heart completely absurd.

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Regarding your first point (which I delineated above), I concur.  No regulations at all is not the answer.  However, we also shouldn't desire a government that over regulates to the point where it's nigh impossible to do business.

Totally agree. I have never said anything contrary to that. If you have not noticed, the person I am talking to is an extremist. Just because I disagree with him does not mean I am an extremist in the opposite direction.

 

4 hours ago, Jito463 said:

And for your final point, a company should be free to do as they wish to make a profit, so long as it doesn't harm others in the process.  If such an event were to occur, then that would be a legitimate cause for governmental interference (either local or federal).

I agree, but the argument here is that Google is harming others. What is and isn't "harming others in the process" is not exactly an easy thing to define.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, FakezZ said:

While I do agree that a completely free market has its flaws, I believe that the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks of government regulation.

Any specific regulations or just all regulations in general? I really don't think you are qualified enough to make such a statement, especially not since there are a huge amount of regulations which are related to incredibly complex subjects.

 

1 hour ago, FakezZ said:

Also calling for more regulation to fix companies paying to implement favorable regulation is at its heart completely absurd.

1) Who paid the EU to implement anti-trust laws?

2) Who here is calling for more regulations?

[Sakkura]

2 hours ago, ChineseChef said:

Why though?  Why is a search engine different?  Why is that one business different than every single other business on the face of the planet??  Why does a search engine have to legally be unbiased?  They don't have a monopoly, regionally or legally.  They have tons of competitors, that they can't block access to even if they wanted.

Should the consumers/users try to use the most unbiased search engine?  Of course.  But who decides what is unbiased vs algorithmic, and makes that decision without bias?

Google knows their search algorithm, it wouldn't be hard to perfectly design their ads to provide the best results for their algorithm, even if they didn't favor their own ads outright.

Frankly, unless the government wants to fully fund a search engine like Google, they shouldn't be able to say what kind of results Google is allowed to give as long as they aren't false.  As a private company, Google should be allowed to straight up block all other competitors within their search results.

Because what would the EU or any gov't do if Google simply said, no.  That they wouldn't pay.  Will Google get blocked?  What if Google decided that due to this "over-burdensome regulation" they were just going to fire all EU employees and pull all business assets out of the EU?  Who would realistically replace Google if the EU decided to block access?  How would the EU even block such an entity?

To me it is only a matter of time before one of the mega companies just starts telling countries "no" to absurd fines like this.  And threatens to just close shop within that countries borders.  It's not like Google needs brick and mortar buildings in those countries for people to access it.

As an aside, I don't view companies telling countries to "get stuffed" as a good thing.  But stupid fines like this are what will push them to start pushing back.  And when they do, they may find they hold more sway than the gov'ts trying to tell them what to do.

Google has a near-monopoly on search, and as such they are not allowed to use that power to distort competition in other areas. Doing so is anti-competitive, harmful to the economy, harmful to the consumer, harmful to innovation... and preventing such abuse is one of the cornerstones of a meritocratic society built on competition, as opposed to a neo-aristocratic society built on monopoly power.

[ChineseChef]

1 minute ago, Sakkura said:

Google has a near-monopoly on search, and as such they are not allowed to use that power to distort competition in other areas. Doing so is anti-competitive, harmful to the economy, harmful to the consumer, harmful to innovation... and preventing such abuse is one of the cornerstones of a meritocratic society built on competition, as opposed to a neo-aristocratic society built on monopoly power.

So Intel should be legally mandated to sell AMD cpus?  MS should be legally mandated to sell MacOS?  How much market share does a company have to have before it has to start legally promote their competitors over themselves? 

[Trixanity]

9 minutes ago, ChineseChef said:

So Intel should be legally mandated to sell AMD cpus?  MS should be legally mandated to sell MacOS?  How much market share does a company have to have before it has to start legally promote their competitors over themselves? 

Not the same. Google owns a platform. Intel doesn't do retail. MacOS is an Apple product you can't buy but ships with products that Apple sells.

 

To use the store analogy from before: Google owns a chain of stores. The only competition are some smaller chains or corner stores who don't have the same brand value or have anywhere near the same sales volume; this store chain sells the majority of groceries. Their brand name is synonymous with supermarkets. So far they've mostly sold products of other companies who produce various goods. Suddenly the store chain decides they want to cut out other brands and/or put them at the back of the store and substitute their own store brand and put it front and center. So they've effectively choked the sales of their previous partners to boost their store brand. You could argue a free market would allow them to use another chain to sell their products but the other chains aren't doing so well so it's not really an option. There is no alternative. The other stores continue to decline and suddenly the previous partners of the store have to downsize because their sales have tanked because the store brand is now the most sold brand in the store. Not because it's the best or cheapest but because it's advertised and put in front of the customer before any other product. They will not grow but will still get some sales from their previous loyal customers who know and care about the brand. Most customers just choose the most convenient which is now the store brand. The store controls the market and can dictate what gets on the shelves and they want their product to be it.

[Sakkura]

25 minutes ago, ChineseChef said:

So Intel should be legally mandated to sell AMD cpus?  MS should be legally mandated to sell MacOS?  How much market share does a company have to have before it has to start legally promote their competitors over themselves? 

No. Imagine if Intel bought Amazon and made them stop selling AMD chips, or at least de-emphasize AMD products. That's the comparable situation (except worse, because Google search has a market share above 90%, Amazon isn't that dominant in its market).

[ChineseChef]

2 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

No. Imagine if Intel bought Amazon and made them stop selling AMD chips, or at least de-emphasize AMD products. That's the comparable situation (except worse, because Google search has a market share above 90%, Amazon isn't that dominant in its market).

So what would be wrong with your scenario?  I don't understand why that is bad/illegal.  Why does a company have to help their competitors in any way shape or form????

[ChineseChef]

6 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

Not the same. Google owns a platform. Intel doesn't do retail. MacOS is an Apple product you can't buy but ships with products that Apple sells.

 

To use the store analogy from before: Google owns a chain of stores. The only competition are some smaller chains or corner stores who don't have the same brand value or have anywhere near the same sales volume; this store chain sells the majority of groceries. Their brand name is synonymous with supermarkets. So far they've mostly sold products of other companies who produce various goods. Suddenly the store chain decides they want to cut out other brands and/or put them at the back of the store and substitute their own store brand and put it front and center. So they've effectively choked the sales of their previous partners to boost their store brand. You could argue a free market would allow them to use another chain to sell their products but the other chains aren't doing so well so it's not really an option. There is no alternative. The other stores continue to decline and suddenly the previous partners of the store have to downsize because their sales have tanked because the store brand is now the most sold brand in the store. Not because it's the best or cheapest but because it's advertised and put in front of the customer before any other product. They will not grow but will still get some sales from their previous loyal customers who know and care about the brand. Most customers just choose the most convenient which is now the store brand. The store controls the market and can dictate what gets on the shelves and they want their product to be it.

So, you are describing Walmart in most smaller cities.  And Walmart doesn't carry stuff made at local shops (not usually).  So, should Walmart be forced to use shelf space to help out local brands?  Which Brands?  How much shelf space?  What if those brands don't sell well? 

[Sakkura]

1 minute ago, ChineseChef said:

So what would be wrong with your scenario?  I don't understand why that is bad/illegal.  Why does a company have to help their competitors in any way shape or form????

They have a duty not to hurt their competitors with monopolistic practices. I don't understand why you want to support monopolies. They suck.

[ChineseChef]

Just now, Sakkura said:

They have a duty not to hurt their competitors with monopolistic practices. I don't understand why you want to support monopolies. They suck.

WHY??????  Why do they have this duty?  Where are you pulling this mindset from????    WHY DOES COMPANY A HAVE TO HELP COMPANY B????????!!!!!!!!!!

 

Why is it the "right thing to do"?  Why is it the moral thing?

 

Google might be the biggest, but they can't block or stop their competitor search engines.  They don't stop users from going anywhere else.  This isn't a physical location/limitation that needs regulation to prevent a natural monopoly.  Just use Bing or some other search engine. 

[Sakkura]

Just now, ChineseChef said:

WHY??????  Why do they have this duty?  Where are you pulling this mindset from????    WHY DOES COMPANY A HAVE TO HELP COMPANY B????????!!!!!!!!!!

 

Why is it the "right thing to do"?  Why is it the moral thing?

 

Google might be the biggest, but they can't block or stop their competitor search engines.  They don't stop users from going anywhere else.  This isn't a physical location/limitation that needs regulation to prevent a natural monopoly.  Just use Bing or some other search engine. 

They don't have to help. They have to not hurt them. This is completely normal. At least the EU isn't mandating that Google (or Alphabet) be split up, the way the US split up Bell for example.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

I have no clue how this lead to an argument about regulations vs free market, but here is my two cents:

 

We have seen time and time again people (mainly third parties) abusing the regulations in place, but removing regulations will NOT create a free market. The only thing that will lead to is complete hysteria and chaos, as people have wildly different views on how things should work. That makes the "controlled by the people" concept borderline impossible, and will be overpowered by the vocal minorities of people with less than noble intentions. In short, we would quickly devolve into cavemen; let's not forget that the rules and regulations had a very significant impact in the state and development of humanity.

[ChineseChef]

Just now, Sakkura said:

They don't have to help. They have to not hurt them. This is completely normal. At least the EU isn't mandating that Google (or Alphabet) be split up, the way the US split up Bell for example.

Why???  Why couldn't Google straight up block all competitor websites??  (from a moral/ethics stand, not a business/profits stand)

 

You just keep saying they shouldn't, its wrong, this is the way it should be.  BUT WHY???  Why should google not actively stomp their competitors???

[Yoinkerman]

4 minutes ago, ChineseChef said:

WHY??????  Why do they have this duty?  Where are you pulling this mindset from????    WHY DOES COMPANY A HAVE TO HELP COMPANY B????????!!!!!!!!!!

 

Why is it the "right thing to do"?  Why is it the moral thing?

 

Google might be the biggest, but they can't block or stop their competitor search engines.  They don't stop users from going anywhere else.  This isn't a physical location/limitation that needs regulation to prevent a natural monopoly.  Just use Bing or some other search engine. 

Because the practices go against consumers participating in a good faith market.

 

It's bad for consumers in the market is the long and short of it.

[Sakkura]

Just now, ChineseChef said:

Why???  Why couldn't Google straight up block all competitor websites??  (from a moral/ethics stand, not a business/profits stand)

 

You just keep saying they shouldn't, its wrong, this is the way it should be.  BUT WHY???  Why should google not actively stomp their competitors???

Because that's abusing their monopoly. Have you never heard about monopolies being bad?

[ChineseChef]

1 minute ago, Colonel_Gerdauf said:

I have no clue how this lead to an argument about regulations vs free market, but here is my two cents:

 

We have seen time and time again people (mainly third parties) abusing the regulations in place, but removing regulations will NOT create a free market. The only thing that will lead to is complete hysteria and chaos, as people have wildly different views on how things should work. That makes the "controlled by the people" concept borderline impossible, and will be overpowered by the vocal minorities of people with less than noble intentions. In short, we would quickly devolve into cavemen; let's not forget that the rules and regulations had a very significant impact in the state and development of humanity.

Regulations should be about safety of products and practices.  And about honesty of advertising those products.  Along with preventing sales discrimination.

[ChineseChef]

1 minute ago, Sakkura said:

Because that's abusing their monopoly. Have you never heard about monopolies being bad?

So, its bad because you say its bad, and I should just go sit in my corner and shut up, since you know better.  Got it

[Volbet]

1 hour ago, ChineseChef said:

So what would be wrong with your scenario?  I don't understand why that is bad/illegal.  Why does a company have to help their competitors in any way shape or form????

Becuase it would solidify the market as it is. 

If a large entity (be it Intel, Google, Microsoft, etc.) use their money, power and influences to push their competitors out of the market not by making better products, but by making it near impossible for your competitors to enter the marketplace to begin with. 

 

If we go with the example of Intel buying Amazon, then they could use their ownership of Amazon to ensure that current and future competition wouldn't make it to a wide audience.

 

Another example would be the monoply suit brought against Microsoft in the early '00s. 

Basically, Micorsoft used their marketshare (93% at the time) to close of the OS market to their competitors.

They did this by making their filesystems and programs closed to developers. 

Essentially, if you had just one Windows PC in your data chain you had to run Windows on all the computers in your data chain. 

And since the Windows OS was installed on 93% of computers back then it was simply not feasible for a person or company to invest in anything but Windows PCs.

Thereby Microsoft closed the circle and created their own demand on the market that could not be met by other companies than Microsoft. 

 

 

[ChineseChef]

2 minutes ago, Yoinkerman said:

Because the practices go against consumers participating in a good faith market.

 

It's bad for consumers in the market is the long and short of it.

I would count this scenario as standard buyer beware, or at least buyer should do their own homework.  If you go to only one store, its your own fault for not looking around.

I don't feel this is anti-consumer in such a way that actively hurts the consumer.  This is a scenario where consumers should shop smarter and spend their money elsewhere if they feel Google is being bad.

[Trixanity]

7 minutes ago, ChineseChef said:

So, you are describing Walmart in most smaller cities.  And Walmart doesn't carry stuff made at local shops (not usually).  So, should Walmart be forced to use shelf space to help out local brands?  Which Brands?  How much shelf space?  What if those brands don't sell well? 

Still not the same. It would be like if Walmart used to sell XYZ brand and started to grow and eventually diminished every other shop. Then they suddenly decide to ditch XYZ to substitute their own killing businesses left and right. However I don't think Walmart can even compare to the stranglehold Google has on the search business. Two much different markets because among other things it's fashionable to support your local businesses and shop at smaller and more intimate stores. And those are just a few differences.

3 minutes ago, ChineseChef said:

WHY??????  Why do they have this duty?  Where are you pulling this mindset from????    WHY DOES COMPANY A HAVE TO HELP COMPANY B????????!!!!!!!!!!

 

Why is it the "right thing to do"?  Why is it the moral thing?

 

Google might be the biggest, but they can't block or stop their competitor search engines.  They don't stop users from going anywhere else.  This isn't a physical location/limitation that needs regulation to prevent a natural monopoly.  Just use Bing or some other search engine. 

It's not about helping. It's about not destroying others. They don't have to help you pick up the item you dropped but they shouldn't punch you in the face while you're attempting to pick up the item. 

 

Google decided to create a platform and managed to make it the absolute biggest. Tons and tons of companies use it because it has been fair and a good tool. Google is now potentially hamstringing their competition because they control the platform. They have a near-monopoly on that type of platform. They control who wins and who loses. They've now allegedly decided to fix the match and make sure they win every time. That's what's bad.

[ChineseChef]

3 minutes ago, Volbet said:

Becuase it would solidify the market as it is. 

If a large entity (be it Intel, Google, Microsoft, etc.) use their money, power and influences to push their competitors out of the market not by making better products, but by making it near impossible for your competitors to enter the marketplace to begin with. 

 

If we go with the example of Intel buying Amazon, then they could use their ownership of Amazon to ensure that current and future competition wouldn't make it to a wide audience.

 

Another example would be the monoply suit brought against Microsoft in the early '00s. 

Basically, Micorsoft used their marketshare (93% at the time) to close of the OS market to their competitors.

They did this by making their filesystems and programs closed to developers. 

Essentially, if you had just one Windows PC in your data chain you had to run Windows on all the computers in your data chain. 

And since the Windows OS was installed on 93% of computers back then it was simply not feasible for a person or company to invest in anything but Windows PCs.

Thereby Microsoft closed the circle and created their own demand on the market that could not be meet by other companies than Microsoft. 

 

 

That is a fantastic example in which I mostly agree.  I still don't see how it applies here. 

 

The argument here is that Google should be legally obligated to help their competitors over themselves.  By not showing their own ads above others.

Google showing their own ads first is considered anti competitive.  But I don't understand why they should even need to show other company ads at all.

I understand Google is the big dog, and everyone uses it.  But they aren't shutting down their competitors.  There are lots of other search engines.  Lots of product aggregating websites.  Why should Google have to show competitor's ads at all?

[Sakkura]

2 minutes ago, ChineseChef said:

So, its bad because you say its bad, and I should just go sit in my corner and shut up, since you know better.  Got it

I already explained the problems monopolies create. But if you want to read up on it, here is a decent starter article. Note that Google's search monopoly is much stronger in Europe than it is in the US (or was when the article was written). Because Yahoo was always much less popular in Europe.

[ChineseChef]

1 minute ago, Trixanity said:

Still not the same. It would be like if Walmart used to sell XYZ brand and started to grow and eventually diminished every other shop. Then they suddenly decide to ditch XYZ to substitute their own killing businesses left and right. However I don't think Walmart can even compare to the stranglehold Google has on the search business. Two much different markets because among other things it's fashionable to support your local businesses and shop at smaller and more intimate stores. And those are just a few differences.

It's not about helping. It's about not destroying others. They don't have to help you pick up the item you dropped but they shouldn't punch you in the face while you're attempting to pick up the item. 

 

Google decided to create a platform and managed to make it the absolute biggest. Tons and tons of companies use it because it has been fair and a good tool. Google is now potentially hamstringing their competition because they control the platform. They have a near-monopoly on that type of platform. They control who wins and who loses. They've now allegedly decided to fix the match and make sure they win every time. That's what's bad.

I mean, your scenario describing "what if Walmart did .."  They actively do that.  They actively reduce jobs and wages wherever they go.  They actively fight local stores.

So, that nightmare scenario you describe is actually just reality, for Walmart.  (which I hate for the very reasons listed there)

 

In the start, Google was one of many, they still are one of many.  Yes they are huge, but so what?  Why should they not show their own ads, and not their competitors?

Should the Ford website show ads for the GMC/Chevy versions of all the Ford cars?   That would be more fair.  Not talking about show rooms, just the websites.

[ChineseChef]

3 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

I already explained the problems monopolies create. But if you want to read up on it, here is a decent starter article. Note that Google's search monopoly is much stronger in Europe than it is in the US (or was when the article was written). Because Yahoo was always much less popular in Europe.

How can a 100% voluntary non geographically limited service have a monopoly in any way??  You can't have a monopoly on search.  Unless they are going to ISPs and data providers and having other search engines shut down, they are in no way a monopoly.  It doesn't matter how much more they are used than other services.  If you have other options, they don't have a monopoly.  End of story.  Regardless of usage rates. 

[Sakkura]

1 minute ago, ChineseChef said:

How can a 100% voluntary non geographically limited service have a monopoly in any way??  You can't have a monopoly on search.  Unless they are going to ISPs and data providers and having other search engines shut down, they are in no way a monopoly.  It doesn't matter how much more they are used than other services.  If you have other options, they don't have a monopoly.  End of story.  Regardless of usage rates. 

If you have a very high market share, it's a monopoly. None of that other stuff matters. Google has a monopoly on search, that's the real end of that story.